You are currently viewing the old forums. We have upgraded to a new NFL Forum. This old forum is being left as a read-only archive.
Please update your bookmarks to our new forum at forums.footballsfuture.com.

5 year stints will get you the exact same problem we currently have. 5 years and then a new coach simply means every 5 years you stand the chance of having talented players on your team no longer fit. Its a talent drain. We've seen it in Miami for over a decade now.

We need to find another coach like Shula. He won with a power running game and a stout defense, and then he won with a gun slinger and no real running game. He showed he could adapt to the talent he had. So long as we are pursuing the newest/modern offenses and/or defenses we will have super high turnover rates of personnel.

You remind me of people I know who I believe are looking to the past to find the answer to the future which would only make sense if the NFL was constant and static and the past meant something. Well, it really doesn't. You can go from 1-15 to 11-5. That's how much the past doesn't mean anything. The 49ers can be a joke and then next year be the toughest team in the league. It's as though some strange form of hyperinflation took place where evolution can occur in the blink of an eye.

And while the game is constantly evolving we have to make some claim ourselves and finally evolve this franchise out of the depths of despair.

You think I'm after the trendy thing? That only speaks to how much football you've watched that you think high-powered offense is trendy. No, that's the commodity that we're trading with these days. It's what has earned the last 10 or more Lombardi Trophies and what has helped numerous other teams win throughout the prior decades.

Where do NFL players come from? College, and what does that look like? It's an even crazier form of speed-on-speed where every QB has to run, every offense has score 30 to win aside form a few great defenses (Bama, LSU, FSU, etc) and whose stars are becoming more and more the mainstream in the NFL too. Hell, even our best high school QB prospects are throwing as well and understand as much about offensive philosophy as NFL draft selections once did!

The WCO was "hot" and "new" in the early 80s and it existed prior to that. This league is about QBs and passing now. Times have changed and it's embarrassing that we as a team haven't recognized that and at least stayed afloat. The Dolphins have finally realized the error of their ways and I'm welcoming the changes with open arms because even if Philbin is gone in 5 years, we'll at least have taken a step in the right direction with the roster and the look of the team.

We've had how many coaches in the last 15 years? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and then there are the interim guys.

Dude, we've not been consistent. And Shula screwed the pooch with Marino. That was as big a crime as has ever been committed in football. Not getting a running game and a solid defense to win a Championship with one of the top QBs of all time shows you how well Shula adapted.

Get with the program. Those days are gone and Shula made a lot of mistakes himself. His glory was in the late 60s and throughout the next decade. Marino fell in his lap and Shula's given credit for that as though the next 16 years were a glowing success. They really weren't which is why no one wants to talk about how unbeatable the Dolphins were with Marino. We talk about single game performances and that's telling. We talk about interrupting the Bears perfect season but they're the team that will go down in history for 1985, not us. We talk about the Fake-Spike Game. We talk about the Dolphins Chargers game (pre-Marino). We talk about the Marino-Bledsoe 1,000-yd passing battle on opening weekend whatever year that was. And finally we talk about 62-7 and how it all ended.

It's all single-game performances.

Do you notice that?

Well, no one has a use for single-game performances.

Give Shula credit for all those Play-Off losses with Marino. Give him credit for the crappy 90s teams. Give him credit for under-achieving in the post-season and never getting a Super Bowl ring when he had a huge advantage at QB. Give him credit for getting smashed in '84 by a well-built team coached by someone who had a more complete vision.

Call it like it is with Shula, not to mention he's been gone for nearly 15 years. Probably time to move on from that shrine anyway.

But that's how age shows itself. It's never in the excitement of embracing what's new and what's going to improve the team. It's the cynical, bitter resistance to change and evolution.

You remind me of people I know who I believe are looking to the past to find the answer to the future which would only make sense if the NFL was a constant. Unfortunately it is not and while it constantly evolves we have to make some claim ourselves and finally evolve this franchise out of the depths of despair.

Not sure if you need help on your reading skills or if you are just trying so hard to characterize me as something I'm not that you fail to comprehend what I am writing. Either way, the very point I was making was we need a coach that is adaptable...that can change. Because the league is not a constant. We need someone who can take whatever talents we have on the team and make them work. Not someone that is single system based and when their system either doesn't work or is no longer relevant to the league is tossed into the recycle bin leaving us with a franchise that is in need of another complete overhaul.

phinmun wrote:

You think I'm after the trendy thing? That only speaks to how much football you've watched that you think high-powered offense is trendy. No, that's the commodity that we're trading with these days. It's what has earned the last 10 or more Lombardi Trophies and what has helped numerous other teams win throughout the prior decades.

When did I say a high powered offense was trendy? Again, you try and characterize me because it suits your argument. I am saying chasing a coach because of ANY system is short sighted. Finding a coach that can adapt is what we should be looking for. As for the last 10 Lombardi Trophies going to a team due to a high powered offense, you ignore the value of the defense entirely. In fact, I would argue that the Giants and the Steelers both won their two most recent titles largely due to defensive performances. Not due to high powered offenses.

phinmun wrote:

The WCO was "hot" and "new" in the early 80s and it existed prior to that. This league is about QBs and passing now. Times have changed and it's embarrassing that we as a team haven't recognized that at at least stayed afloat. The Dolphins have finally realized the error of their ways and I'm welcoming the changes with open arms because even if Philbin is gone in 5 years, we'll at least have taken a step in the right direction with the roster and the look of the team.

Have you heard me complain about Tannehill? Have you heard me complain about shifting to an offense that is more pass heavy? The idea that the only way to win in this league is on the arm of a QB is simply false. There are many ways to win games. The league has put some rules in the books over the last decade to push for more passing, and the league is responding. I have NO PROBLEM with us wanting to be more of a passing team, but I do have a problem with putting in a blocking scheme that relegates one of the very best offensive linemen in the game to a less than stellar player. That's foolish and not a prerequisite to having a successful passing game.

phinmun wrote:

We've had how many coaches in the last 15 years? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and then there are the interim guys.

Dude, we've not been consistent.

When and where did I say we were consistent? Again, what's with the reading skills? In fact, I said the exact opposite. I said we need someone to come in, who is adaptable, and then we can have some consistency. The turnover rate is killing us.

phinmun wrote:

And Shula screwed the pooch with Marino. That was as big a crime as has ever been committed in football. Not getting a running game and a solid defense to win a Championship with one of the top QBs of all time shows you how well Shula adapted.

Get with the program. Those days are gone and Shula made a lot of mistakes himself. His glory was in the late 60s and throughout the next decade. Marino fell in his lap and Shula's given credit for that as though the next 16 years were a glowing success. They really weren't which is why no one wants to talk about how unbeatable the Dolphins were with Marino. We talk about single game performances and that's telling. We talk about interrupting the Bears perfect season but they're the team that will go down in history for 1985, not us. We talk about the Fake-Spike Game. We talk about the Dolphins Chargers game before Marino even got there. We talk about the Marino-Bledsoe battle on opening weekend. And finally wet talk about 62-7.

It's all single-game performances.

No one has a use for single-game performances.

Give him credit for all those Play-Off losses. Give him credit for the crappy 90s. Give him credit for under-achieving in the post-season and never getting a Super Bowl. Give him credit for getting smashed in '84.

Call it like it is with Shula, not to mention he's been gone for nearly 15 years. Probably time to move on from that shrine anyway.

Shula was AVERAGING an astonishing 10 wins a seasons over nearly 4 decades of coaching, part of which was when there were only playing 14 games. 2 Superbowl wins, 6 Superbowl appearances (most ever by a head coach) 5 time AFC champ, and most regular season wins in coaching history, and he is guilty of the worst crime in football history? I had a lot of respect for your passion and your input, but if you view Shula as a man that couldn't adapt, you don't know your head from your rear end when it comes to football.

Shula's teams nearly almost ALWAYS made the the playoffs. He won with virtually no real passing game in the 70's in Miami, he won in the 60's with a Colts team that was able to throw a lot. He then won with a young QB who wasn't much of a thrower and the "Killer Bee's" defense and then he won with one of the greatest gunslingers the game has ever seen, but little else. He adapted to the talent he had in front of him. He didn't force square pegs into circle holes. You are asking me to credit him with playoff losses? I'll do it gladly. He lost playoff games. At least he got there. Where have the last 5 coaches gotten us with their systems and roster gutting? They've placed us firmly in the basement of the NFL...a place we never saw when Shula was around. Hate on Shula all you want, but you sound like a buffoon. He's the greatest coach to ever take the field. He is the crown jewel of the Dolphins once proud franchise.

Finally, for the record, I never once suggested we bring in Shula. My point always was, and still is, we need someone who can adapt to the talent we have on the team. Not ask the team to adapt to them. That's it. When we have to rid ourselves of players like Brandon Marshall and Jake Long, both PRO BOWL players LAST YEAR, then I see something very, very wrong about the offensive "system" we have in place._________________"22 players are involved in every football play. To value precisely the activity of one of them, it is first necessary to account for the actions of the other 21"

Failure to win a Super Bowl with Marino can ONLY be blamed on Shula. He had control of the entire organization for Marino's career up to 1996.

Every other excuse makes no sense in that context.

Focusing on not winning a Superbowl ignores the fact that we had a winning team through virtually the ENTIRE Marino era.

Also, to focus solely on no title during the Marino era, ignores the entire career of the greatest/winningest coach in NFL history._________________"22 players are involved in every football play. To value precisely the activity of one of them, it is first necessary to account for the actions of the other 21"

Failure to win a Super Bowl with Marino can ONLY be blamed on Shula. He had control of the entire organization for Marino's career up to 1996.

Every other excuse makes no sense in that context.

Focusing on not winning a Superbowl ignores the fact that we had a winning team through virtually the ENTIRE Marino era.

Also, to focus solely on no title during the Marino era, ignores the entire career of the greatest/winningest coach in NFL history.

As nutty as Al Davis was at the end, I think he was right about one thing: he always believed a coach had roughly ten good years to offer.

In the case of Shula, his best success all came within the 1965 to 1975 time frame. He was so good as a coach, that even though he declined relative to other coaches during the 80s (Walsh, Gibbs, BP) he still won a high percentage of regular season games. His all time wins record is due to longevity as much as superiority.

Look, I love Shula. But we all need to be honest when it comes to assigning blame for Marino's so-called failure to win a Super Bowl. He really never had a better team than our playoff competition. And the gap between the NFC and the AFC during that time was absolutely enormous. Marino woud have won multiple SBs with Washington, SF, Dallas, NYG, or even Chicago. The Phins never had a stud runner, HOF WR, or top flight defense when Danny was in his prime. It was a failure of scouting more than coaching, but Shula had control over that as well. Sorry Don, it's your fault._________________Earn more sessions by sleeving.

As nutty as Al Davis was at the end, I think he was right about one thing: he always believed a coach had roughly ten good years to offer.

In the case of Shula, his best success all came within the 1965 to 1975 time frame. He was so good as a coach, that even though he declined relative to other coaches during the 80s (Walsh, Gibbs, BP) he still won a high percentage of regular season games. His all time wins record is due to longevity as much as superiority.

Look, I love Shula. But we all need to be honest when it comes to assigning blame for Marino's so-called failure to win a Super Bowl. He really never had a better team than our playoff competition. And the gap between the NFC and the AFC during that time was absolutely enormous. Marino woud have won multiple SBs with Washington, SF, Dallas, NYG, or even Chicago. The Phins never had a stud runner, HOF WR, or top flight defense when Danny was in his prime. It was a failure of scouting more than coaching, but Shula had control over that as well. Sorry Don, it's your fault.

Wow, I'd never heard that but AL knew business and that idea was surely a retelling of an older story he'd surely heard elsewhere. I would certainly agree with the premise on the idea that in a world as complex as the NFL, it would be virtually impossible to find someone who (without having advantages like Marino) could be a leader and stay ahead of the curve which is really what defines success in business and coaching.

Shula's existence in Miami was justified long after his contemporaries had departed only because of the achievements of his past. However, as time went on, even the boost of Dan Marino wasn't enough to overcome the steadily-diminishing lead that Shula had. He was losing ground and 80s saw other coaches overtake one of the greatest of all time.

Shula's common-sense wisdom and discipline-oriented approach were worthy of honor, but the mid 80s were his last real gasp. In '84 he was beaten by an up-and-coming coach who'd later be recognized as not only an equivalent Hall-of-Famer but also an innovator and revolutionary. In '85, in '86 Shula lost his grasp. The 80s came to a close and by the time the 90s arrived the team was growing desperately 1-dimensional and consistently out-matched aside from what Marino could deliver.

Shula was an old dog who'd performed his last trick. The way it ended was sad. Sad for Shula. Sad for Marino. Sad for the team. It didn't deserve to go down like it did. However, we should learn the lesson here which is that evolution is the only thing to which we as individuals do bow. Darwin's little discovery (if it was his at all) was not just one of a process but that of the most cold, calculating killer the world's ever known.

It caught up with Shula and had no remorse for his sin which was that of eluding death. Al Davis was just another victim. A revolutionary. A genius. A real leader and hero. Gone now, in days when he's regarded as not a shadow of that myth. Time is a cost and Shula spent every dime he had which his legend has paid for. The death of Dorian Grey ladies and gentlemen. The story is as old as time because everyone faces a time when our methods and ideas become obsolete.

So, is it worth it Jerruh? Because you're on deck.

Sean Peyton, Mike McCarthy...these guys were ahead of the curve the same way Shula was early on. As the rest of the league catches up (look at Andy Reid today) the success starts to decline and the magic is lost.

You remind me of people I know who I believe are looking to the past to find the answer to the future which would only make sense if the NFL was a constant. Unfortunately it is not and while it constantly evolves we have to make some claim ourselves and finally evolve this franchise out of the depths of despair.

Not sure if you need help on your reading skills or if you are just trying so hard to characterize me as something I'm not that you fail to comprehend what I am writing. Either way, the very point I was making was we need a coach that is adaptable...that can change. Because the league is not a constant. We need someone who can take whatever talents we have on the team and make them work. Not someone that is single system based and when their system either doesn't work or is no longer relevant to the league is tossed into the recycle bin leaving us with a franchise that is in need of another complete overhaul.

phinmun wrote:

You think I'm after the trendy thing? That only speaks to how much football you've watched that you think high-powered offense is trendy. No, that's the commodity that we're trading with these days. It's what has earned the last 10 or more Lombardi Trophies and what has helped numerous other teams win throughout the prior decades.

When did I say a high powered offense was trendy? Again, you try and characterize me because it suits your argument. I am saying chasing a coach because of ANY system is short sighted. Finding a coach that can adapt is what we should be looking for. As for the last 10 Lombardi Trophies going to a team due to a high powered offense, you ignore the value of the defense entirely. In fact, I would argue that the Giants and the Steelers both won their two most recent titles largely due to defensive performances. Not due to high powered offenses.

phinmun wrote:

The WCO was "hot" and "new" in the early 80s and it existed prior to that. This league is about QBs and passing now. Times have changed and it's embarrassing that we as a team haven't recognized that at at least stayed afloat. The Dolphins have finally realized the error of their ways and I'm welcoming the changes with open arms because even if Philbin is gone in 5 years, we'll at least have taken a step in the right direction with the roster and the look of the team.

Have you heard me complain about Tannehill? Have you heard me complain about shifting to an offense that is more pass heavy? The idea that the only way to win in this league is on the arm of a QB is simply false. There are many ways to win games. The league has put some rules in the books over the last decade to push for more passing, and the league is responding. I have NO PROBLEM with us wanting to be more of a passing team, but I do have a problem with putting in a blocking scheme that relegates one of the very best offensive linemen in the game to a less than stellar player. That's foolish and not a prerequisite to having a successful passing game.

phinmun wrote:

We've had how many coaches in the last 15 years? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and then there are the interim guys.

Dude, we've not been consistent.

When and where did I say we were consistent? Again, what's with the reading skills? In fact, I said the exact opposite. I said we need someone to come in, who is adaptable, and then we can have some consistency. The turnover rate is killing us.

phinmun wrote:

And Shula screwed the pooch with Marino. That was as big a crime as has ever been committed in football. Not getting a running game and a solid defense to win a Championship with one of the top QBs of all time shows you how well Shula adapted.

Get with the program. Those days are gone and Shula made a lot of mistakes himself. His glory was in the late 60s and throughout the next decade. Marino fell in his lap and Shula's given credit for that as though the next 16 years were a glowing success. They really weren't which is why no one wants to talk about how unbeatable the Dolphins were with Marino. We talk about single game performances and that's telling. We talk about interrupting the Bears perfect season but they're the team that will go down in history for 1985, not us. We talk about the Fake-Spike Game. We talk about the Dolphins Chargers game before Marino even got there. We talk about the Marino-Bledsoe battle on opening weekend. And finally wet talk about 62-7.

It's all single-game performances.

No one has a use for single-game performances.

Give him credit for all those Play-Off losses. Give him credit for the crappy 90s. Give him credit for under-achieving in the post-season and never getting a Super Bowl. Give him credit for getting smashed in '84.

Call it like it is with Shula, not to mention he's been gone for nearly 15 years. Probably time to move on from that shrine anyway.

Shula was AVERAGING an astonishing 10 wins a seasons over nearly 4 decades of coaching, part of which was when there were only playing 14 games. 2 Superbowl wins, 6 Superbowl appearances (most ever by a head coach) 5 time AFC champ, and most regular season wins in coaching history, and he is guilty of the worst crime in football history? I had a lot of respect for your passion and your input, but if you view Shula as a man that couldn't adapt, you don't know your head from your rear end when it comes to football.

Shula's teams nearly almost ALWAYS made the the playoffs. He won with virtually no real passing game in the 70's in Miami, he won in the 60's with a Colts team that was able to throw a lot. He then won with a young QB who wasn't much of a thrower and the "Killer Bee's" defense and then he won with one of the greatest gunslingers the game has ever seen, but little else. He adapted to the talent he had in front of him. He didn't force square pegs into circle holes. You are asking me to credit him with playoff losses? I'll do it gladly. He lost playoff games. At least he got there. Where have the last 5 coaches gotten us with their systems and roster gutting? They've placed us firmly in the basement of the NFL...a place we never saw when Shula was around. Hate on Shula all you want, but you sound like a buffoon. He's the greatest coach to ever take the field. He is the crown jewel of the Dolphins once proud franchise.

Finally, for the record, I never once suggested we bring in Shula. My point always was, and still is, we need someone who can adapt to the talent we have on the team. Not ask the team to adapt to them. That's it. When we have to rid ourselves of players like Brandon Marshall and Jake Long, both PRO BOWL players LAST YEAR, then I see something very, very wrong about the offensive "system" we have in place.

Offensive systems these days are not adaptable. They require certain types of players to be successful because they are based upon certain concepts and certain methods of defeating defensive systems.

Coaches today are not adaptable because they've evolved within a world that mandates they excel at something. No coach in this league is adapting the way coaches of the past did.

You're asking for something that doesn't exist and doesn't function in the NFL anymore so what am I supposed to say to you? You're unclear with what you want, because you have no vision for this team as far as I can tell.

You rip on Coaches, GMs, Players and then you rip on the team when we replace them. It's high time you make a move on deciding just where you stand and stop being so overly critical to the point your just a cynical voice floating around.

Shula was never great without great players. He had great talent with the Colts. He had great talent with the Dolphins in the early 70s. He had great talent in the first third of Marino's tenure in Miami.

Those were his most successful periods.

If you disagree, then explain why the 70s team lost it's momentum when key players (Csonka, Kiick & Warfield) signed with the upstart World Football League? They were handed the biggest contracts in football up to that point and Shula couldn't overcome the loss of that type of talent. The Steelers took over and the rest is history.

It was ALWAYS the talent that allowed Shula to reach the great heights he did. It was certainly not him alone and to say he was the greatest coach of all time simply on the basis that he won more games is ignoring the other coaches who contributed more to the game and had higher winning percentages than Shula.

I'm not going to sit here and listen to this ancient rhetoric as you preach to me like I'm stupid.

You're stuck in your beliefs which are out of touch and so we disagree.

Al Davis couldn't find his rear end with both his hands. The guy changed head coaches as often as most people change their underwear. When was the last time Davis and Co. were on the map of NFL relevancy? His coaching theory led to the worst record in pro football over the last 2 decades. Quoting Al Davis as your source on Coaching is like quoting Adolf Hitler at a peace summit.

Anyone who says the game passed Shula by is high. High as a kite. The man coached in Miami for 25 season and had EXACTLY TWO losing seasons the entire time. Since his departure, we have had 6 losing seasons and appear headed towards our 7th. Don Shula AVERAGED 10 wins a season for 33 years. Al Davis' theory simply does not apply. Beyond that, Shula was at the forefront of the changing the game. He headed the rules committee and was pushing to make it more of a passing league.

His last season our offense was 7th in the league and our defense was 10th. When was the last time we had both and offense and a defense in the top 10?

Skewer him all you want for the fact that Marino never got a title. His great mistake was hiring Tom Olivadotti and being loyal to him after it was pretty clear Olivadott stunk. However, the real reason Shula was escorted out of the building in Miami was because the owner wanted Jimmy Johnson. Why? Because Jimmy Johnson was the next big hot deal. How did that work out?

No, Shula is a Hall of Famer and consider by many to be the best coach of all time. He is certainly, without quetion, the winning-est coach of all time. Pointing to any shortcoming on Shula is like finding a flaw in the Mona Lisa. Its an absurdity wrapped in a joke. Shula won for as long as he did because he learned to adapt to the talent he had in front of him and maximize the strengths of his players. He did not force players into schemes that they didn't fit into. We have history to show us that. 33 years worth of winning.

I can't believe I am having to defend Don Shula in a Dolphins forum. Its an embarrassment._________________"22 players are involved in every football play. To value precisely the activity of one of them, it is first necessary to account for the actions of the other 21"

I can't believe I am having to defend Don Shula in a Dolphins forum. Its an embarrassment.

And the fact you consider me Pontius Pilot shows it all.

You've made a man into a deity.

You've painted us all blasphemers.

Good luck writing the conclusion to whatever story you're telling.

Don Shula IS a football god. He resides on the Mount Olympus of football called Canton.

You are a blasphemer, if you question his record.

Hopefully whatever ending I write has us being better strangers._________________"22 players are involved in every football play. To value precisely the activity of one of them, it is first necessary to account for the actions of the other 21"